Umar Sheikh

The appellant brought an action against the federal government and the Minister of Health following the death of his son shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

The claim alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office regarding the approval and promotion of the vaccine.

The motion judge struck the claim without leave to amend, finding it plain and obvious that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the government owed no private law duty of care to individual members of the public when making broad public health policy decisions, and that the claim lacked material facts to support the bad faith required for misfeasance.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing his complaint that his union breached its duty of fair representation under s. 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant had been terminated after failing to return to work following the lifting of a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, claiming injuries from a car accident prevented his return.

The union filed a grievance but struggled to obtain medical documentation from the applicant to substantiate his incapacity.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard and found the OLRB's conclusion that the union did not act arbitrarily was justified, transparent, and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court struck Daniel Hartman's claim against the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Health, which alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office following the death of his son after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

The court found that the government’s public health actions and communications were directed to the public at large and did not create a private law duty of care to individuals.

The claim was dismissed as it was plain and obvious that it could not succeed, even with proposed amendments.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim in a proposed class action regarding the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination order in the aviation industry.

The plaintiffs conceded several claims, leaving inducement of breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, and a section 2(d) Charter claim.

The court exercised its discretion to hear the motion prior to certification, struck the conceded portions of the claim, allowed the plaintiffs to further amend the remaining claims, and otherwise dismissed the motion.

The Defendant moved to strike the Plaintiffs' proposed class action Statement of Claim.

The Claim asserted causes of action under s. 2(d) of the Charter and misfeasance in public office related to the federal public service COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The Federal Court granted the motion in part, striking the tort claims on the basis that they were barred by the grievance provisions of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, but allowing the Charter claims to proceed as it was not plain and obvious that they were subject to the grievance scheme.

Leave to amend the claim to include plaintiffs not afforded grievance rights was granted.